HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 13, 2009
How the Global Spread of English can Enrich
Rather than Engulf Our Culture and Identity
Tony T. N. Hung
Hong Kong Baptist University
Abstract
The unprecedented spread of English as a global language in
recent decades has often been viewed as a threat to the
culture and identity of English learners in the ‘Outer’ and
‘Expanding’ Circles, especially when reinforced by
traditional textbooks and materials which are heavily Anglocentric in their cultural content and outlook, and which aim
only at helping learners assimilate ‘native-speaker’ linguistic
and cultural norms. Rather than as a threat, however,
English should be seen not only as a means for countries to
join the global community and compete in the international
arena, but a means of making their national identity and
culture known to the rest of the world. One implication for
language teaching is the need for English textbooks and
materials which reflect our own culture and identity (and
not just those of native English speakers), and engage our
learners in expressing their own culture and identity rather
than mimic that of others.
1. Introduction
The rise of English from an international language (one of
several) to the first de facto ‘world language’ has taken place
within the breathtakingly short space of the last 60 years or so.
The many factors contributing to this development are wellknown and will not be rehearsed in the present paper1. Instead,
1
Cf. D. Crystal, English as a global language (Cambridge 1997).
Hung: The Global Spread of English
it will focus on some of the major issues and problems that
have arisen as a result of the spread of English as a global
language, in an attempt to assess them in a more positive light
than one often encounters in the literature, and to suggest how
we as users of ‘World Englishes’ can make the most of the
opportunities offered by the language to assert our own culture
and identity rather than be ‘subjugated’ by it.
2. Artificial ‘World Languages’
It is instructive to start with a little historical perspective. It was
at the end of the 19th century that the world first became
conscious of the need for a ‘world language’ which could serve
as a means of communication between all nations. A number of
artificial ‘world languages’ – Esperanto, Volapuk, Ido, etc. –
sprang up in quick succession. Their main justification was that,
unlike natural languages (such as English or French), they
were – in theory at least – culturally, socially and politically
‘neutral’, and therefore better suited to serving the purposes of
a bona fide ‘world language’. As Dr Zamenhof (the creator of
Esperanto) put it, it promised to be ‘an international language
that could be adopted by all nations and be the common
property of the whole world, without belonging in any way to
any existing nationality.’
These noble ideals were to remain unfulfilled. With the benefit
of hindsight, it is clear that Esperanto and all the other artificial
world languages were doomed to failure from the start, for
various reasons which we cannot go into here.2 By the middle
of the 20th century, it was evident that, if the world was ever to
Among these are the fact that artificial languages are no more than a tool of
communication, and unlike natural languages (such as English or Chinese), they do
not open the door to a vast repository of pre-existing knowledge, culture and
civilization; this, coupled with the fact there were at any given time not enough
speakers of these artificial languages to make it worth one’s while to learn them,
ensured their eventual failure.
2
42
Hung: The Global Spread of English
have a ‘world language’, it would have to come from one of the
existing natural languages. Thoughts began to turn to English
(among others) as a potential world language, and various
potential obstacles were discussed and weighed. In his small
but influential book, The English Language (1949), C. L. Wrenn
had this to say:
Two kinds of difficulty have been encountered by the
advocates of English as a world language: first, its vast
and complex vocabulary, and second, the lack of
relationship between its spelling and its pronunciation.
(p.203)
One cannot help but smile at this grossly simplistic assessment
of the problems facing English as a potential world language.
With the benefit of hindsight, after the last 50 years of
development into the first de facto ‘world language’ in history,
we have become only too aware of the many thorny issues
surrounding its emergence. Among these are such issues as:
z
z
z
z
Language Rights, ‘Linguistic Imperialism’
‘Ownership’ of English
Standards and Norms, Linguistic Variation
Language, Culture and Identity
In the present paper, I will briefly address each of these issues
from a perspective which views English not as a ‘threat’ but an
asset which can be appropriated by all nations for their own
ends, in a world where English can no longer be said to belong
exclusively to a few traditional English-speaking countries, but
to the whole world.
3. ‘Linguistic Imperialism’
‘Linguistic imperialism’ is a phrase first popularized by Robert
Phillipson in his influential book Linguistic Imperialism (1992),
43
Hung: The Global Spread of English
where he speaks of the ‘hegemony’ of English and claims that
“The advance of English has invariably been at the expense of
other languages”. This viewpoint was echoed by others (e.g.
Pennycook, 1995) and became a hot topic of debate among
scholars for several years.
Since then, cooler heads have prevailed, and the ‘imperialism’
metaphor for the spread of English now seems more like a
hyperbole (albeit a well-intentioned one) to many observers
(including the present author). One of the most cogent
arguments against the ‘imperialism’ school was advanced by
Brutt-Griffler, who pointed out that ‘World English is not
simply made through speakers of other languages but by them’
(Brutt-Griffler, 2002, p. ix). In this light, speakers of World
Englishes are (indeed) not quite the helpless and passive
victims of some international conspiracy of linguistic
imperialism that they are sometimes made out to be, but active
participants who use English for their own ends, and in the
process actively contribute to the development and spread of
World Englishes. Furthermore, even though the notion that
English has caused indigenous languages to be marginalized
does have some justification in former British colonies where
English continues to play a key role in society, in the
‘Expanding Circle’, where English has spread in the last half
century, there is (as Brutt-Griffler points out) “no indication
that English is supplanting other languages where it is spread
as a world language” (ibid., p. 121). If we look at the spread of
English in countries like China, Korea and Japan (three typical
‘Expanding Circle’ nations), it would be difficult to make the
claim that Chinese, Korean or Japanese is under any sort of
threat.3
Genuine cases where indigenous languages have been known to be most under
threat from English are in ‘Inner Circle’ countries where English has been
established as the first language (e.g. Australia, with its numerous aboriginal
languages), but not where it is a second or foreign language.
3
44
Hung: The Global Spread of English
On the whole, a more sane and balanced way of looking at the
role of English in countries where it is a second or foreign
language would be this:
World language does not replace other languages but
serves as integral part of… “the composite pragmatic
model of bilingualism, one that recognises that a
bilingual acquires as much competence in the two (or
more) languages as is needed and that all the
languages together serve the full range of
communicative needs”. (Sridhar, cited in Brutt-Griffler,
ibid. p. 122)
4. The Question of ‘Ownership’
A logical corollary of the coming of age of English as a ‘world
language’ in the 21st century is that it is no longer the exclusive
property of a few traditional English-speaking countries (the
‘Inner Circle’, namely UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand). As a de facto world language, English now
belongs to the whole world, and the ‘Outer’ and ‘Expanding’
Circles have ownership of it too. Yet this logical conclusion is
still a long way from being universally accepted, least of all by
those with a vested interest in maintaining their historical
‘ownership’ of the language as a marketable resource.
Central to the question of ownership is the traditional
dichotomy between ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ speakers. Once
upon a time, the distinction was relatively easy to maintain,
when English was an ‘imported’ language in the former British
colonies spoken by a small minority, and when it was hardly
ever used as an everyday language of communication among
the locals themselves. Over the past few decades, however, the
distinction has become increasingly difficult to maintain,
especially in ‘Outer Circle’ contexts (such as India, Singapore,
Malaysia and Philippines) where:
45
Hung: The Global Spread of English
(i) English has taken root as one of the local
languages, fully nativised and accultured after
many decades of use; and
(ii) Many locals are highly competent bilinguals who
speak English as a de facto ‘first’ or ‘primary’
language, and who can justifiably be considered
‘native speakers’ of a New Variety of English (e.g.
Philippine or Singapore English, though not (of
course) British or American English).
Without the traditional preconceptions about ‘native speakers’
(which are often based as much on ethnicity and nationality as
on purely linguistic factors), it would be difficult to justify
calling a British or American a ‘native English speaker’ on the
one hand, and a fluent Singaporean, Indian or Filipino speaker
of English a ‘non-native speaker’ on the other. The difficulty of
maintain the traditional ‘native/non-native’ distinction has
been succinctly captured by Kirkpatrick:
It is difficult to find rational criteria for classifying
varieties of English as “native”; it is easier to classify
them as “nativised”… By a nativised variety I mean a
variety that has been influenced by the local cultures and
languages of the people who have developed that
particular variety. (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 7)
5. Linguistic Variation
Like any living language, English exhibits variation across a
number of parameters – regional, formal/informal,
spoken/written, social, functional, register, etc. But unlike such
languages as French or Bahasa Malaysia, where the
standardized form of the language is codified by an official
body entrusted with the task, English is much more
‘democratic’ in this regard, and there are no officially
46
Hung: The Global Spread of English
sanctioned ‘standards’ even within any one English-speaking
country, let alone the whole world.
From a logical point of view, it is only to be expected that
variety, rather than conformity to a single norm, is the very
essence of English as a world language. As the Nobel-prize
winning writer Chinua Achebe has put it, ‘The price a world
language must be prepared to pay is submission to many
different kinds of use’. Yet there continues to be a deeply
ingrained inequality in the way linguistic variation is perceived,
depending on whether it comes from a so-called ‘native’ or
‘non-native’ variety of English.
To give an example, in Hong Kong English (HKE), there is a
phonological process of diphthong reduction in certain
environments, as illustrated by the following (cf. Hung 2000):
Diphthong reduction in HK English
//
Æ []
now, house
town [tn], noun [nn], down [dn]
//
Æ
boy, noise
[]
point [pnt], coin [kn]
The above feature of HKE is usually stigmatized as ‘bad’
English, or an interlanguage ‘error’. However, similar processes
can be found in native varieties of English as well, e.g. the
process known as ‘smoothing’ in British RP, where a diphthong
or even triphthong is reduced to a monophthong:
VV(V) Æ V
// Æ
poor
[:]
poor [p:]
/a/, /a/ Æ
tower, tire
[:]
tower/tire/tar [t:]
47
Hung: The Global Spread of English
When such a feature occurs in RP, it is considered intrinsically
‘right’, and a model worthy to be imitated by speakers in the
Outer and Expanding Circles – in contrast to the basically
similar feature of diphthong reduction in HK English, which is
considered an ‘error’ to be corrected.
6. Vocabulary and Grammar
Every living language (or variety of language) is in a constant
state of change, and nowhere is this more apparent than in its
vocabulary. As English adapts to the local cultural and
linguistic situations in places like Singapore, Hong Kong, etc., it
acquires new English expressions rooted in local languages and
cultures, such as:
z
z
z
Singapore English: kiasu (‘afraid to lose’), angpow
(‘red packet’), shaking legs (‘being idle’), etc.
Hong Kong English: dimsum (‘tidbits’), kwailo
(‘foreigner’), body check (‘health scan’), etc.
Chinese English: guanxi (‘relationship’), hutong
(‘narrow lane’), etc.
While such indigenized English expressions are generally
tolerated, or even considered to add a touch of ‘local colour’,
they are not usually included in standard (even so-called
‘international’) English dictionaries4.
The attitude towards grammatical variation in World Englishes
is much more rigid and intolerant. As Diane Larsen-Freeman
has tellingly put it:
It is unfair, but nevertheless true, that native speakers
of a language are permitted to create neologisms, as I
have done with grammaring. Such a coinage, however,
might have been corrected if a non-native speaker of
4
The Macquarie Dictionary (3rd Edition onwards) is an honourable exception.
48
Hung: The Global Spread of English
English had been its author. (Larsen-Freeman, 2003, p.
64)
In spite of such deeply-ingrained prejudices, innovative
expressions (not conforming to the norms of ‘native’ varieties
of English) have from time to time appeared in World
Englishes and attained (at least) local currency. Generally, they
are indigenized expressions reflecting some aspect of local
identity and culture, sometimes filling a void for which there
are no existing standard English expressions, e.g.:
z
z
Hong Kong English:
I like to play computer.
recreational purposes’5]
[= ‘use the computer for
Japanese English:
This restaurant is delicious. [= ‘the food in this restaurant is
delicious’]
Such expressions are not only communicatively effective, but –
far from being ‘errors’ which break the rules of grammar – they
draw on well-attested processes in the English language. For
instance, ‘This restaurant is delicious’ is no different in nature
from a perfectly acceptable sentence like ‘Japan won the game’
where the whole stands for the part, and it is much more
economical and elegant than ‘The food in this restaurant is
delicious’. Regardless of their ‘native’/’non-native’ origin, such
expressions should be welcomed rather than stigmatized if
they fulfill a much-needed communicative function and
express some aspect of local culture and identity.
5
This means much more than just playing computer games, or playing with the computer.
49
Hung: The Global Spread of English
7. International Intelligibility
One of the basic rationales (implicit or explicit) for adopting a
native variety of pronunciation (such as RP or GA) as a model
for L2 learners to imitate has always been that it is believed to
be more widely understood all over the world than any ‘nonnative’ varieties of English.
Daniel Jones first made a
somewhat similar claim on behalf of RP in the first edition of
his classic English Pronouncing Dictionary (1917), though it was
based on personal belief rather than any empirical evidence.
The myth that ‘native’ varieties are necessarily more intelligible
(internationally) than ‘non-native’ varieties of English was
exploded once and for all by Smith and Rafiqzad’s famous
experiment (1979), where recordings of 8 different accents of
English (one of which was ‘native’ and the rest ‘non-native’)
were played to a large number of international subjects, and
their intelligibility measured.
Far from being the most
intelligible, the native variety (in this case American English)
turned out to be the second least intelligible. The unmistakable
moral of this experiment is that, from the point of view of an
international audience (as opposed to one consisting only of
native speakers from a particular country), it cannot be
assumed that native accents have any advantages over nonnative in terms of intelligibility. And since English is a world
language and serves as a common means of communication
among non-native speakers as much as, if not more than, native
speakers 6 , the only authentic yardstick for international
intelligibility will have to be a truly representative international
audience.
In later studies, Smith (1992) sums up the issue of intelligibility
thus: “Being a native speaker does not seem to be as important
6 According to one estimate (Crystal 2004), there are about 1 billion non-native speakers to 400 million
native speakers in the world.
50
Hung: The Global Spread of English
[for intelligibility] as being fluent in English and familiar with
several different national varieties”. A similar point is made by
Jennifer Jenkins (2007): “In international communication, the
ability to accommodate to interlocutors with other first
languages than one’s own is a far more important skill than the
ability to imitate the English of a native speaker” (p. 238).
8. English and Global Culture
As many scholars have observed, English is rapidly losing its
national cultural base and is becoming associated with a global
culture (cf. Dornyei, 2006, cited in Jenkins, 2007, p. 198). The
prevailing ethos in the Outer and Expanding Circles today is to
learn English not just to understand ‘native’ English-speakers
and their culture, but to express themselves to the rest of the
world and help the world to understand their own identity and
culture. Through English, they hope to influence the rest of the
world, not just let it influence them.
The above ethos is reflected in the current language policies of
advanced ‘Outer/Expanding Circle’ countries, as described in
Tsui and Tollefson (2007). The following is a representative
sample:
z
z
z
Japan: “…learn English in order to enrich and promote
Japanese culture to the rest of the world” (Tsui & Tollefson,
2007, p. 11).
Korea: “…the English language has been appropriated for
putting Korea on the global map and for representing
Korean views to the rest of the world” (ibid.).
Malaysia: “The learning of English has been constructed as
helping the country to achieve its national mission and
national cohesiveness without losing its cultural
uniqueness and its continuity with past traditions” (ibid., p.
13).
51
Hung: The Global Spread of English
9. Conclusion
The Esperanto vision, once thought dead and gone, may yet be
realized today (albeit in an unexpected form):
An international language that could be adopted by all
nations and be the common property of the whole
world, without belonging in any way to any existing
nationality. (Dr Zamenhof, 1889)
Against earlier expectations, a living natural language, English,
may yet serve as a ‘world language’ in a way once thought
achievable only by an artificial (and ‘neutral’) language –
provided it is appropriated by different countries all over the
world and adapted to their individual needs and cultures,
rather than as an ‘imperialistic’ vehicle of western culture.
References
Brutt-Griffler, J. (2002). World English: A study of its development. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Crystal, D. (2004). The language revolution. UK: Polity Press.
Hung, T. T. N. (2000). Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. World Englishes,
19(3), 337-356.
Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. UK: Oxford
University Press.
Jones, D. (1917). English pronouncing dictionary. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. (First
published by Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Smith, L. E. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In B. Kachru (Ed.),
The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 75-90). Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
52
Hung: The Global Spread of English
Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and
English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. UK:
Heinle ELT.
Pennycook, A. (1995). The cultural politics of English as an international language. UK:
Longman.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. UK: Oxford University Press.
Smith, L., & Rafiqzad, K. (1979). English for cross-cultural communication: The
question of intelligibility. TESOL Quarterly, 13(3), 371-80.
Tsui, A., & Tollefson, J. (2007). Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wrenn, C.L. (1949). The English Language. Methuen.
Zamenhof, L. L. (1889). Dr. Esperanto’s International Language, Introduction & Complete
Grammar. (R. H. Geoghegan, Trans.). Balliol College, Oxford.
About the author
Tony T. N. Hung is a Professor in the Language Centre, Hong Kong Baptist
University. He holds a PhD in Linguistics from the University of California (San
Diego) and an MA in Applied Linguistics from the University of Lancaster. He has
published a number of books and journal papers in a variety of areas in linguistics
and applied linguistics, including World Englishes, phonology, the teaching of
grammar and pronunciation, and Chinese linguistics.
Email: [email protected]
53